TY - JOUR T1 - Causal and Associational Linking Language From Observational Research and Health Evaluation Literature in Practice: A systematic language evaluation JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2021.08.25.21262631 SP - 2021.08.25.21262631 AU - Noah A. Haber AU - Sarah E. Wieten AU - Julia M. Rohrer AU - Onyebuchi A. Arah AU - Peter W.G. Tennant AU - Elizabeth A. Stuart AU - Eleanor J. Murray AU - Sophie Pilleron AU - Sze Tung Lam AU - Emily Riederer AU - Sarah Jane Howcutt AU - Alison E. Simmons AU - Clémence Leyrat AU - Philipp Schoenegger AU - Anna Booman AU - Mi-Suk Kang Dufour AU - Ashley L. O’Donoghue AU - Rebekah Baglini AU - Stefanie Do AU - Mari De La Rosa Takashima AU - Thomas Rhys Evans AU - Daloha Rodriguez-Molina AU - Taym M. Alsalti AU - Daniel J. Dunleavy AU - Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz AU - Alberto Antonietti AU - Jose A. Calvache AU - Mark J. Kelson AU - Meg G. Salvia AU - Camila Olarte Parra AU - Saman Khalatbari-Soltani AU - Taylor McLinden AU - Arthur Chatton AU - Jessie Seiler AU - Andreea Steriu AU - Talal S. Alshihayb AU - Sarah E. Twardowski AU - Julia Dabravolskaj AU - Eric Au AU - Rachel A. Hoopsick AU - Shashank Suresh AU - Nicholas Judd AU - Sebastián Peña AU - Cathrine Axfors AU - Palwasha Khan AU - Ariadne E. Rivera Aguirre AU - Nnaemeka U. Odo AU - Ian Schmid AU - Matthew P. Fox Y1 - 2021/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/08/30/2021.08.25.21262631.abstract N2 - Background Avoiding “causal” language with observational study designs is common publication practice, often justified as being a more cautious approach to interpretation.Objectives We aimed to i) estimate the degree to which causality was implied by both the language linking exposures to outcomes and by action recommendations in the high-profile health literature, ii) examine disconnects between language and recommendations, iii) identify which linking phrases were most common, and iv) generate estimates by which these phrases imply causality.Methods We identified 18 of the most prominent general medical/public health/epidemiology journals, and searched and screened for articles published from 2010 to 2019 that investigated exposure/outcome pairs until we reached 65 non-RCT articles per journal (n=1,170). Two independent reviewers and an arbitrating reviewer rated the degree to which they believed causality had been implied by the language in abstracts based on written guidance. Reviewers then rated causal implications of linking words in isolation. For comparison, additional review was performed for full texts and for a secondary sample of RCTs.Results Reviewers rated the causal implication of the sentence and phrase linking the exposure and outcome as None (i.e., makes no causal implication) in 13.8%, Weak in 34.2%, Moderate in 33.2%, and Strong in 18.7% of abstracts. Reviewers identified an action recommendation in 34.2% of abstracts. Of these action recommendations, reviewers rated the causal implications as None in 5.3%, Weak in 19.0%, Moderate in 42.8% and Strong in 33.0% of cases. The implied causality of action recommendations was often higher than the implied causality of linking sentences (44.5%) or commensurate (40.3%), with 15.3% being weaker. The most common linking word root identified in abstracts was “associate” (n=535/1,170; 45.7%) (e.g. “association,” “associated,” etc). There were only 16 (1.4%) abstracts using “cause” in the linking or modifying phrases. Reviewer ratings for causal implications of word roots were highly heterogeneous, including those commonly considered non-causal.Discussion We found substantial disconnects between causal implications used to link an exposure to an outcome and the action implications made. This undercuts common assumptions about what words are often considered non-causal and that policing them eliminates causal implications. We recommend that instead of policing words, editors, researchers, and communicators should increase efforts at making research questions, as well as the potential of studies to answer them, more transparent.View this table:Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Protocols https://osf.io/jtdaz/ Funding StatementNo funding was granted specifically for the support of this study, and no funders had any role in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. The researchers were independent from funders and that all authors, external and internal, had full access to all of the data (including statistical reports and tables) in the study and can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis is also required.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Not human subjects researchAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data and code are publicly available through our OSF repository: https://osf.io/jtdaz, except for files containing personal identifying information and/or personal API keys. https://osf.io/jtdaz ER -